Download PDF
Semin Hear 2012; 33(04): 399-409
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1329227
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Melodic Contour Identification Training in Cochlear Implant Users with and without a Competing Instrument

John J. Galvin III
1   Division of Communication and Auditory Neuroscience, House Research Institute, Los Angeles, California
,
Elizabeth Eskridge
1   Division of Communication and Auditory Neuroscience, House Research Institute, Los Angeles, California
,
Sandy Oba
1   Division of Communication and Auditory Neuroscience, House Research Institute, Los Angeles, California
,
Qian-Jie Fu
1   Division of Communication and Auditory Neuroscience, House Research Institute, Los Angeles, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 November 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

For cochlear implant (CI) patients, music perception can be especially difficult when multiple instruments are played. The relatively poor spectro-temporal resolution does not allow CI patients access to pitch and timbre cues that may be used to segregate and stream competing melodies and instruments. Auditory training improves CI users' melodic pitch perception. Given the more difficult and more common listening condition of multi-instrument music, it may be more beneficial to train with multiple instruments than with a single instrument. In this study, CI subjects were trained to identify melodic contours. One group (“no masker”) trained while listening only to the target contours. The other group (“masker”) trained while listening to target contours presented with a competing masker. Before training, baseline melodic contour identification was measured with and without a masker; the timing, pitch, and timbre of the masker was systematically varied. Subjects trained at home for a total of 10 hours during the 1-month training period. Results showed that baseline performance was poorer with the masker than without, and that performance improved with both training methods. However, the magnitude of improvement was greater for the masker group, suggesting that the more difficult training provided better outcomes.

Keywords

cochlear implant - music - training
 

  • References

  • 1 Gfeller K, Witt S, Woodworth G, Mehr MA, Knutson J. Effects of frequency, instrumental family, and cochlear implant type on timbre recognition and appraisal. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2002; 111: 349-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Looi V, McDermott H, McKay C, Hickson L. Music perception of cochlear implant users compared with that of hearing aid users. Ear Hear 2008; 29: 421-434
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 McDermott HJ. Music perception with cochlear implants: a review. Trends Amplif 2004; 8: 49-82
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bregman AS. Auditory Scene Analysis, the Perceptual Organization of Sound. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1999: 125-130
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Zhu M, Chen B, Galvin III JJ, Fu QJ. Influence of pitch, timbre and timing cues on melodic contour identification with a competing masker (L). J Acoust Soc Am 2011; 130: 3562-3565
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Galvin III JJ, Fu QJ, Nogaki G. Melodic contour identification by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear 2007; 28: 302-319
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Galvin III JJ, Fu QJ, Oba SI. Effect of a competing instrument on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 125: EL98-EL103
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Looi V, She J. Music perception of cochlear implant users: a questionnaire, and its implications for a music training program. Int J Audiol 2010; 49: 116-128
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Galvin III JJ, Fu QJ, Shannon RV. Melodic contour identification and music perception by cochlear implant users. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1169: 518-533
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Gfeller K, Witt S, Adamek M , et al. Effects of training on timbre recognition and appraisal by postlingually deafened cochlear implant recipients. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13: 132-145
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Moore DR, Amitay S, Hawkey DJ. Auditory perceptual learning. Learn Mem 2003; 10: 83-85
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Amitay S, Hawkey DJ, Moore DR. Auditory frequency discrimination learning is affected by stimulus variability. Percept Psychophys 2005; 67: 691-698
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Amitay S, Irwin A, Moore DR. Discrimination learning induced by training with identical stimuli. Nat Neurosci 2006; 9: 1446-1448
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Moore DR, Halliday LF, Amitay S. Use of auditory learning to manage listening problems in children. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009; 364: 409-420
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Chan JC, Freed DJ, Vermiglio AJ, Soli SD. Evaluation of binaural functions in bilateral cochlear implant users. Int J Audiol 2008; 47: 296-310
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1994; 95: 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Galvin III JJ, Fu QJ, Oba S. Effect of instrument timbre on melodic contour identification by cochlear implant users. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 124: EL189-EL195
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Fu QJ, Galvin III JJ. Computer-assisted speech training for cochlear implant patients: feasibility, outcomes, and future directions. Semin Hear 2007; 28: 141-149
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Fu QJ, Galvin III JJ. Maximizing cochlear implant patients' performance with advanced speech training procedures. Hear Res 2008; 242: 198-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar